The Cubs need help, and a lot of it, to eventually compete beyond the 2012 season.

Garza’s trade value as a solid 28-year-old starter could single handedly revamp the Cubs in one fell swoop with the addition of four high-quality prospects coming in return for his services.

This falls right in line with Epstein & Co.’s new course of action–gaining young, talented players in exchange for some of Chicago’s best veterans.

Most notably, the trade of Sean Marshall sent a clear message the Cubs are in rebuilding mode, which doesn’t at all jive with the idea of signing Garza, the team’s most valuable trade bait, to a long-term deal.

Simply said, the prize is in the prospects for the Cubs, and Garza can net the most value in return.

For now, all the noise surrounding Garza are just rumors. But that’s sure to turn to sweet music for the Cubs with young fresh faces on the way.

4 Comments

I think they have to trade him and as many others that they can. They aren’t going to win with him so if they can get 3 or 4 good young players, and hope at least 2 of them will have good major league careers, they have too trade him.

There’s that side of it, certainly. But I wouldn’t go as far to say they have to trade Garza. Of course, I think the Cubs will because of his high trade value. But you can make a equally good case as why the Cubs should keep Garza, too.

Zambrano, on the other hand, is a guy that must go. His situation, obviously, is beyond player value and has everything to do with being an immature pain in the neck.

I get where you’re coming from though…if you’re going to rebuild, then rebuild. And get what you can from Garza.
Thanks, Joel.

“Most notably, the trade of Sean Marshall sent a clear message the Cubs are in rebuilding mode, which doesn’t at all jive with the idea of signing Garza, the team’s most valuable trade bait, to a long-term deal.”

That message could also be that the Cubs sent a soon to be 30 year old reliever for a good young 4 or 5 starter that could blossom into a 3 that’s cost controlled for 5 years, as well as two good prospects.

Filling a hole in the rotation for a reliever isn’t blowing anything up…yet. Theo got a starter AND good prospects. If he’d received all prospects and no starter in return, than the blowing it up theory MIGHT have merit.

Relievers are notorious for flaming out.

Marshall was awesome but the middle relief is pretty strong, the rotation has been strengthened, and the Cubs have added two possible future major players.

Semantics aside, let’s not confuse rebuilding for blowing the team up, which we’ll agree the Cubs have yet to do.

I concur the Sean Marshall trade was no willy-nilly deal, either. In fact, I believe the move had less to do about money, or Marshall’s contract, or his age than others may think…but had more to do with Sean’s high trade value. He was the perfect bargaining chip for the Cubs, a guy they could use to bring back what they so desperately wanted–younger prospects.

Trading Marshall made sense on several levels…considering the Cubs’ long term plan. Otherwise, there’s no reason you’d give up the NL’s best setup man who’s left-handed, healthy and at the top of his game. But that’s what rebuilding teams do, and that’s what this particular trade signaled.

All I’m saying is, if the Cubs are going to rebuild, and they’re willing to trade guys like Marshall…why would they stop there?

Why not get what you can for Garza, then Marlon Byrd, maybe even Soriano…and for heaven’s sake: Zambrano.

Sell high, buy low has been the Cubs motto this offseason–and Garza’s stock may never get higher.

The Cubs can get a ton of talent in return for this guy. Maybe even the next Sean Marshall, or the next Matt Garza.

Under different circumstances, of course, I think the Cubs would lock Garza up long-term.

But if the commitment is to a rebuilding project, Garza is likely good as gone. How soon? We’ll just have to see.